It would require a Constitutional amendment to ban Congress from holding a lame duck session. (Congress could limit its sessions to a couple of months a year if it wanted too on its own authority, but it doesn't have the desire to do so, therefore a constitutional amendment would probably be required.)
However, the problem with banning lame duck sessions is that there would need to be a clause allowing for Congress to convene for an emergency session to handle situations such as sneak attacks on the US or other serious crises which could happen during the lame duck session when Congress would not, theoretically, be allowed to meet if lame duck sessions were banned. However, if we allowed the President to summon emergency sessions during the Lame duck period, then the president would soon abuse this privilege by just declaring any insignificant event to be an "emergency" just to call Congress into session and ram controversial legislation through. This would effectively render the ban on lame duck sessions useless. (By the way, this is why I think term limits are also a bad idea, because they can turn an entire congress into a 2yr lame duck session where they do not fear the voters at all).
The best way to get rid of the lame duck problem is to swear the newly elected Congressman in within a few days of the election and kick the old ones out...that way Congress doesn't have enough time to retaliate against the American people during the lame duck session for voting them out. Another thing that needs to be considered is how to ban Congressmen from getting cushy jobs working for lobbyists after they are kicked out.
You’re right, that’s probably a better idea. They did try, with the 20th Amendment to improve things. They are such scoundrels you have to always assume they are going to try to screw us. Isn’t that sad? In fact, it’s pathetic.